Is 45acp fading away?

If I were limited to 10 rounds, Id still carry the 9mm. The only thing negative that changed there, was the capacity. All the other positives remain. 10 rounds or 17, I still shoot the 9mm better than the 45's.

I think if you remove emotion, ego, and war stories from the mix here, and do some realistic comparisons, especially beyond "target shooting" at the range, and things become pretty obvious, pretty quickly, as long as youre willing to accept the results, like them or not.

A good hit with either will bring about the same results, just like a near-miss with either. A mm here, or a couple of fps there, are really meaningless. Placement and hitting the right things, is what will stop things the quickest.

Both are handgun rounds, and no matter what youre using, you dont stop shooting until the target is down and out.

trackskippy said:

If I were limited to 10 rounds, Id still carry the 9mm. The only thing negative that changed there, was the capacity. All the other positives remain. 10 rounds or 17, I still shoot the 9mm better than the 45's.

I think if you remove emotion, ego, and war stories from the mix here, and do some realistic comparisons, especially beyond "target shooting" at the range, and things become pretty obvious, pretty quickly, as long as youre willing to accept the results, like them or not.

A good hit with either will bring about the same results, just like a near-miss with either. A mm here, or a couple of fps there, are really meaningless. Placement and hitting the right things, is what will stop things the quickest.

Both are handgun rounds, and no matter what youre using, you dont stop shooting until the target is down and out.

Click to expand...

Pretty much. But, when things are nearly equal bigger is better.

It just boils down to how much you rate speed vs size.

For example recently I have been proving out a new .45 ACP that I shoot quite well, next to it my tried and true Glock 19. Both I can run a FAST under 5 seconds, but am usually around 4.5 with the 9mm and 4.8 with the .45. pretty close but of course the 9mm is a bit faster.

Out of the holster with aimed shots it's quite close and of course splits are a bit quicker with the 9mm, but still quite close, .23 average vs .28 average.

So are those small gains in speed worth the reduced terminal performance? As Paul Harrel says, "you decide".

Other factors, sure the Glock holds more ammo and that's a big gain for the same size and, yes, I can get a much smaller 9mm that holds the same 8 as my .45 (HK45c) but with the micro guns my times absolutely go up to .45 ACP or worse levels.

So it's all a calculation, and it's all about compromises and what aspects of shooting you value more.

If I was limited to 10 I would absolutely look to a bigger caliber because I have a particular size and form factor I prefer for shooting and carry.

trackskippy said:

If I were limited to 10 rounds, Id still carry the 9mm. The only thing negative that changed there, was the capacity. All the other positives remain. 10 rounds or 17, I still shoot the 9mm better than the 45's...

Click to expand...

That would be, "...the positive...".

Singular.

... and subjective.

trackskippy said:

...I think if you remove emotion, ego, and war stories from the mix here, and do some realistic comparisons, especially beyond "target shooting" at the range, and things become pretty obvious, pretty quickly, as long as youre willing to accept the results, like them or not...

Click to expand...

Now that's just the Kool-aid talkin'.

By what metric, save possibly steel barrier penetration, would the 9mm out-class the .45 ACP?




GR

AJC1 said:

I think a 10 round limit will have a huge impact on that choice. Round count was an important factor to a lot. If they carry the same which would you choose.

Click to expand...

True dat.

Current Coastal Democrat National Socialist Provinces bear that out.




GR

Garandimal said:

By what metric, save possibly steel barrier penetration, would the 9mm out-class the .45 ACP?

Click to expand...

For most people, in most platforms, in any given period of time, more rounds on target.

How much that will actually make a difference is as impossible to guess as how much more the 5-15% increased size, expanded, a .45 ACP will make a difference.

Both will give adequate penetration, both will expand with a quality JHP and both will do the job if delivered to the correct spot.

It's why the caliber war will never end, both (and the rest not mentioned) will do the job just fine and both have a list of pros and cons to suss out and decide, as per the individuals skills, physical abilities and philosophy.

JR24 said:

For most people, in most platforms, in any given period of time, more rounds on target.

How much that will actually make a difference is as impossible to guess as how much more the 5-15% increased size, expanded, a .45 ACP will make a difference.

Both will give adequate penetration, both will expand with a quality JHP and both will do the job if delivered to the correct spot.

It's why the caliber war will never end, both (and the rest not mentioned) will do the job just fine and both have a list of pros and cons to suss out and decide, as per the individuals skills, physical abilities and philosophy.

Click to expand...

IF - you compare them at the same ME level?

... probably not.

The weaker round is always easier to shoot.

Hence the FBI replacing the 400 ft-lb .40/180 gr. (same as the .45 ACP/230 gr.) w/ the weaker 9mm.

That's objective.

And, as a civilian, where every round has a potential lawsuit attached to it?

Fewer is better.




GR

Its all about getting rounds on target, and the right targets, as quickly as possible and keep it up until you win. Pure and simple.

Arguing about the caliber, especially pistol calibers, is just silly. Whichever one (of the realistic choices) is the one you shoot best with should be your choice. Not because your grandpa told you a hit in the pinkie toe will kill them and everyone nearby.

I carried 45s for a number of decades until I saw the light, havent carried one for about 20 years now. I dont have a problem with them, and still like shooting them, I just find that 9mm works better for me. I guess Im just more objective about things than some others.

Garandimal said:

IF - you compare them at the same ME level?

... probably not.

The weaker round is always easier to shoot.

Hence the FBI replacing the 400 ft-lb .40/180 gr. (same as the .45 ACP/230 gr.) w/ the weaker 9mm.




GR

Click to expand...

LOL. It sounds like your feelings are hurt.

Whichever one allows you to make the fastest, most accurate hits, in the right places, and do so repetitively, is going to be the winner.

If you can do it with 45, 10mm, 50AE, etc, great, but I think anyone who can do that with those, can still likely do it better with 9mm, and still get the desired result.

A good hit is a good hit with any of them.

trackskippy said:

Its all about getting rounds on target, and the right targets, as quickly as possible and keep it up until you win. Pure and simple..../

Click to expand...

No, that's how you win a race.

If you can't shoot 400 ft-lbs quickly and accurately?

Good for you.

Knowing when to step down is important.




GR

Garandimal said:

IF - you compare them at the same ME level?

... probably not.

The weaker round is always easier to shoot.

Hence the FBI replacing the 400 ft-lb .40/180 gr. (same as the .45 ACP/230 gr.) w/ the weaker 9mm.

That's objective.




GR

Click to expand...

Ok, but to get into to caliber war land, if you get adequate penetration (9mm gets just about as good or better depending on load) and similar expansion (9mm does get to 80% or better to the bigger rounds, depending on loads) what purpose does the extra ME serve?

I see an argument, perhaps, with something like 10mm, .357 sig or some of the 165 grain .40 where your ME is 500-600+ but a 124 grain 9mm at 1150, not even necessarily +p, you get like 364 ft/lb. You are adding a lot of extra recoil and lower capacity for 36 ft/lb?

Nah, I think the thing that matters is getting to the parts you need to hit, and damaging them when you get there, so expansion and penetration.

Surface area of and permanent wound channels could be quite important for lethality, but for a CCW it doesn't really matter if they die, it's about getting them to stop through CNS hits or psychological stops. In both cases I generally think more hits are better*, but if you can find a way to shoot a bigger round just as fast, or near enough, bigger certainly helps.

*Caveat being that you get sufficient penetration and some expansion, which to me means 9mm minimum, YMMV. In before "just use a .22 then!!!" argument is launched.

Of course I say all this with a Glock 19 sized 8+1 shot .45 on my hip and both my Glock 19s in the safe.

I shoot them close enough it's just about what I like, and these days I like the .45.

JR24 said:

Ok, but to get into to caliber war land, if you get adequate penetration (9mm gets just about as good or better depending on load) and similar expansion (9mm does get to 80% or better to the bigger rounds, depending on loads) what purpose does the extra ME serve?...

Click to expand...

For me?

... It's not having to shoot the threat... again.


GR

Garandimal said:

For me?

... It's not having to shoot the threat... again.

​

GR

Click to expand...

Plenty of real life stories of .45 ACP not getting the job done in one, or dozens of shots. Just like anything else.

It does make a mess of the meat targets though . Love those!

JR24 said:

Of course I say all this with a Glock 19 sized 8+1 shot .45 on my hip and both my Glock 19s in the safe.

I shoot them close enough it's just about what I like, and these days I like the .45.

Click to expand...

The 6+1 slimline G36 .45 ACP for me.

The low pressure, subsonic aspect of the .45 ACP makes it especially attractive as a SD load, 400 ft-lbs being the icing on the cake.




GR

JR24 said:

Plenty of real life stories of .45 ACP not getting the job done in one, or dozens of shots. Just like anything else.

It does make a mess of the meat targets though . Love those!

Click to expand...

True, but stack'em up against the failures of the 9mm.

When one gets away from the gel... (and the hype)?

Bigger hollow points - are more reliable.

Objective fact.




GR

Garandimal said:

True, but stack'em up against the failures of the 9mm.

Click to expand...

Even so it's really hard to compare gunfights, if it was we'd all agree on both the best caliber but also the best bullet and weight.

Garandimal said:

Bigger hollow points - are more reliable.

Objective fact.

Click to expand...

Can't argue there, that does seem to be pretty true and even clogged the old adage still fits, .45 don't shrink.

JR24 said:

Even so it's really hard to compare gunfights, if it was we'd all agree on both the best caliber but also the best bullet and weight.



Can't argue there, that does seem to be pretty true and even clogged the old adage still fits, .45 don't shrink.

Click to expand...

Would be really interesting to know what the FBI would be carrying - if they only had to arm their Quantico trained field agents.






GR

Garandimal said:

The 6+1 slimline G36 .45 ACP for me.

The low pressure, subsonic aspect of the .45 ACP makes it especially attractive as a SD load, 400 ft-lbs being the icing on the cake.




GR

Click to expand...

Good guns. I've shot em a few times but ultimately liked the G30S better for my hand size and the thinner grips didn't really help concealment but the thicker grips helped me handle recoil and get back on target faster.

I've tried and owned most of the .45s on the market and have been a big 1911 fan all my life, but ultimately have decided on the HK45c. Same size as a Glock 19/23 (ideal size for both carry and shooting for me), still gets the 8+1 and 10 round backup and as noted shoots in my hands nearly as fast as my 9mms, at least for aimed or flash sight picture shots (meaning I'm the real limiter), faster back on than any of my small .45 Glocks or 1911s and really pleasant to shoot as well, even with my hotter range loads (I load mine to match my carry HST, so 230 grains at around 950 FPS out of a 4.25" barrel, haven't chrono'd from the HK yet) more pleasant, IMO, than any of my guns except my Glock 21 which is the softest shooting .45 I have found.

The DA/SA trigger has taken some work to get down but I'm almost at the same speed on target as my Glock's (with tens of thousands more trigger pulls and draws) and already pretty much past my SAO guns.

JR24 said:

Good guns. I've shot em a few times but ultimately liked the G30S better for my hand size and the thinner grips didn't really help concealment but the thicker grips helped me handle recoil and get back on target faster.

I've tried and owned most of the .45s on the market and have been a big 1911 fan all my life, but ultimately have decided on the HK45c. Same size as a Glock 19/23 (ideal size for both carry and shooting for me), still gets the 8+1 and 10 round backup and as noted shoots in my hands nearly as fast as my 9mms, at least for aimed or flash sight picture shots (meaning I'm the real limiter), faster back on than any of my small .45 Glocks or 1911s and really pleasant to shoot as well, even with my hotter range loads (I load mine to match my carry HST, so 230 grains at around 950 FPS out of a 4.25" barrel, haven't chrono'd from the HK yet) more pleasant, IMO, than any of my guns except my Glock 21 which is the softest shooting .45 I have found.

The DA/SA trigger has taken some work to get down but I'm almost at the same speed on target as my Glock's (with tens of thousands more trigger pulls and draws) and already pretty much past my SAO guns.

Click to expand...

The G23.4 fits me like a glove, but the G36 carries a lot better.

The trick to the grip is to sand off the "golf ball" hump on the back-strap.

Moves the pivot point down to below the middle of the ring finger, and reduces the circumference a little.

'Uge difference.

If Glock had also chambered it, of the G48, in .40?

Would have gone w/ that.

P.S. 230 gr. +P HST produces std. pressure/service length Bbl. performance (400 ft-lb) from the Glock 3.8" Bbl., w/ very little additional blast or recoil.




GR

I think in today's "CC" world, the biggest difference, in my opinion, is weight.

I love my all steel 1911, and being steel, the recoil difference for me is not significant, for me, 45 is more push, and 9 is more snappy, small .380s are also snappy. I can carry a polymer 9mm with an equal number of rounds as the 45, and I can shoot either fairly well, but, "generally" the 9mm will weigh less, at least with the guns I have, even my kimber 9mm with 7 is lighter than my 1911, and it is also more snappy to me.

So while I am comfortable carrying either, the decision over which to carry, 9 vs 45, with a 10 round limit, may just be a matter of which one is more comfortable for each individual to carry all day and which one is more comfortable to shoot based on perceived recoil.

I have done a bit of research on one stop shots, and almost all calibers need 1.x to stop the threat, so, if you are double tapping, it is not going to matter that much which bullet weighs more.

YMMV

d

You mean there is a caliber other than 45ACP? I can’t believe it, what heresy!!

Its all about what current law supports. Maybe overpenitration is a problem. Maybe not. Why shoot 230 grains when 185s are faster less recoil and weigh less. If more rounds didnt change the answer people in Alaska would not be in love with the 10mm over other options.

AJC1 said:

If more rounds didnt change the answer people in Alaska would not be in love with the 10mm over other options.

Click to expand...

Been a few years but everyone I knew in Alaska went with revolvers, usually in .44 mag. Out where we were at 10mm was basically impossible to find.

JR24 said:

Been a few years but everyone I knew in Alaska went with revolvers, usually in .44 mag. Out where we were at 10mm was basically impossible to find.

Click to expand...

I watch tons of people talk about capacity and how more shots is soooo valuable. Seemed relivent to my previous train of thought where 9mm gets the nod due to more capacity.

AJC1 said:

I watch tons of people talk about capacity and how more shots is soooo valuable. Seemed relivent to my previous train of thought where 9mm gets the nod due to more capacity.

Click to expand...

Certainly could be, the coastal browns I saw up there were often 900+ lbs so I wanted the biggest, heaviest, fastest hardcasts i could shoot well, and a 12 gauge with 3 1/2 mag slugs in the boat or camp.

Then again, the bears I saw ran away when they noticed is so nothing would have been just as effective

Frankly I was more worried about startling a moose than bears.